Liam Byrne: The hon. Gentleman is the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment, and has done a great deal to draw attention to the issues. I think there is consensus in all parts of the House that local communities are best placed to design the shape of services, but we made clear in a recent White Paper that the director of adult social services will need to undertake a strategic assessment of local needs. Given that more than 300,000 people in the country are blind or visually impaired, we expect their needs to be given prominence in the plans.

John Baron: Despite what the Minister says, the fact remains that, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), some local authorities are simply not providing essential services. Given that Guide Dogs for the Blind estimates that at least 80,000 people are not receiving any dedicated rehabilitation services just because of where they live, and given that the Minister's Department has even refused to be represented on the Guide Dogs for the Blind project group which is looking into the issue, will the Government stop washing their hands of the problem, and end the postcode lottery by establishing minimum entitlements to care for all blind and partially sighted people so that they can lead more independent lives?

Jane Kennedy: It is a shame that the hon. Lady added that last point. I very much appreciate the way in which community pharmacists, in particular, have worked with primary care trusts to deal with the problems that have occurred during the first few weeks of the new service. As for the first part of the hon. Lady's question, if we phased in the service we clearly had to phase in the way in which we managed patients—exactly the way in which we have managed the 30,000 patients who are the most dependent of all. Obviously we must ensure that the oxygen service gives each patient the service that he or she requires, and that is why, when it is operating fully, the new service will prove very effective indeed.

Linda Riordan: Is the Minister aware that, in west Yorkshire, Air Products, which was contracted to supply home oxygen from 1 February, has failed to do so, leaving patients high and dry? Local pharmacists who have lost their contracts with Air Products are kindly supplying the much needed oxygen and keeping hospital admissions down. Will the Minister explain why the system has been changed, given that it was working so well before?

Jane Kennedy: We have been doing that, and I followed the operation of the new service not only from 1 February but during the weeks beforehand. We have seen a surge in the number of general practitioner orders for patients with continuous or long-term needs, and it is not yet clear precisely why that has happened. There could be a number of reasons, including GPs reviewing the number of patients using high volumes of cylinder oxygen, or people beginning to exercise choice across the wider range of services now available. We are working very closely with primary care trusts, GPs and patients to ensure that patients receive precisely the service that they need. As I have said, I am grateful for the way in which pharmacies and PCTs have co-operated with suppliers to ensure that these early problems with the service are ironed out very quickly.

Jane Kennedy: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his re-appointment to the Front Bench as health spokesman. His question was posed in characteristically robust terms, but no, I do not accept that patients' lives are at risk in the way that he describes. As I explained in my earlier answers, I am aware that there have been problems and we are working very hard to address them. As I have also said, it is important that the new service delivers oxygen to those who need it when they need it. These early problems have come about for a range of reasons, and I anticipate that we will get over them very rapidly.

Kelvin Hopkins: Apparently, PriceWaterhouseCoopers put out a report suggesting that the contracting out of the pension scheme administration would be challenging and pose a degree of business continuity risk. Is not this simply an attempt to privatise, driven by dogma?

Stephen O'Brien: Without scapegoating strategic health authorities or the as yet non-operational NHS Business Services Authority, will the Minister give a guarantee that, in line with the Government's target, the Department will now stop the deliberate policy of long and damaging delays of due payments to suppliers to the NHS, such as PJ Care Ltd. in Milton Keynes and The Shred Safe Ltd. of St. Neots, which have waited more than 120 days to be paid? Is he not a little embarrassed that NHS trusts, by those unfair means, seek to mask their deficits, which were incurred as a direct result of implementing Government policy?

Dentist Training

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her assiduousness in pressing for the dental school in her constituency. She is absolutely right that preventive care is extremely important. Not only do we have a public health strategy for oral health, but an important part of the new contract is that it allows dentists to spend time on preventive health care, as well as other treatments.

Paul Beresford: I declare an interest—it is becoming a habit—but I am fascinated by the Minister's reply. She will be aware that dental students need academic clinical teachers. Does she agree that the 6 per cent. reduction in the number of academic clinical teachers over the past year could present a problem? Some 20 per cent. of those teachers are over 55, and 33 per cent. of them are aged 45 to 55. Does she agree that we must face the fact that there is a possible problem with a new school, more places and more students, but fewer teachers?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which we have been looking at in relation to the way that we deliver dental training. As well as training to recruit more academics, we can consider other things in the future, such as outreach schools and so on, where students spend more time perfecting their skills in the community, as well as in the school. He is absolutely right to suggest that this issue is important, and I can assure him that we are looking at it.

Paul Truswell: Is not one of the immediate problems about the supply of NHS dentists the fact that those who opt out of the service are writing to patients inviting them to opt into a Denplan contract on a first-come, first-served basis, before those patients know whether there will be any NHS re-provision in the area? Would not that have been prevented if the cut-off date for agreeing the contract had been somewhat earlier?

Rosie Winterton: Most NHS dentists are, in fact, independent contractors. The NHS contracts with them, and in future that will be done in an improved way. We have had no control: if a dentist left the NHS, there was no way in which the local primary care trust had the money to recommission local dentistry. The reforms that we are introducing change all that.
	I am aware that there are particular problems in Lincolnshire, which has received substantial access money to increase availability. As I have said, however, that money will be available locally. It would, meanwhile, be interesting to know whether purchasing in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman outlined is now Conservative party policy.

Rosie Winterton: Some NHS dentists say that they will expand their lists if other local dentists do not want to sign up. Over and above that, international recruitment has taken place, and 1,000 recruits are currently going through the international qualifying examination. In addition, there are corporate bodies that want to undertake NHS dentistry. An extra £315 million is going into NHS dentistry compared with two years ago, so we can increase capacity and access for patients. The deal is good for dentists, but, importantly, it is good for patients, too.

Patricia Hewitt: What I have said on several occasions, both to the House and to the hon. Gentleman when I have met him to discuss the situation in his constituency and the wider area, is that although most NHS institutions are continuing both to improve patient care and to live within their budgets, there are serious financial problems in a small number of organisations and in some areas. We are therefore working with the strategic health authorities to do everything possible to ensure not only that we continue to meet our targets—for example, waiting no more than six months for an operation anywhere—but that we deal with the financial problems in that minority of organisations.

Philip Hollobone: I have been contacted by a constituent who writes to say that his daughter, who is a hospital ward manager, in order to meet Government targets has been ordered to discharge patients against her recommendations when they are not ready. Many of these patients have had to be readmitted. Does the Minister share my concern over this news?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is right. Where PCTs merge there will be fewer PPI forums in future, but that does not necessarily mean that there will be fewer people involved in them. The work of the consumer council, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is a good example of the different ways in which it is possible to involve patients and users of services in decisions about how those services are improved in future. Harry Cayton, from within the Department, is currently leading an expert panel to examine the different ways in which we can promote exactly this sort of user involvement.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. But what would he say to a constituent of mine, a pensioner, who found that she was being charged 49p per minute to ring to her husband in hospital via Patientline and was forced to listen to a minute of blurb from Patientline before she even got through? It was also costing her husband 20p before he got through to her. Does that not represent an exploitation of vulnerable people? Will the Minister issue some guidance to trusts on negotiating those contracts to ensure that patients are not exploited in this way?

Meg Hillier: In my constituency good work is going on and the primary care trust is trying to reduce smoking, which is unfortunately above the national average with 31 per cent. of men and 25 per cent. of women lighting up. Can my hon. Friend give assurances to people in my constituency who suffer from heart disease and cancer—the two biggest killers in our borough—about the future of cancer and heart services at Barts hospital?

NHS Dentistry

Charles Clarke: Today, I am publishing the Government's response to the recent consultation on a new points-based system for managed migration. This is being published as "A Points-Based System: Making Migration Work for Britain", and copies are available in the Library.
	I am very pleased to be able to publish our detailed policies for a new managed migration system, which are a result of an intensive consultation process involving face-to-face contact with 1,200 stakeholders, as well as 517 written responses. The United Kingdom needs a world-class migration system to attract the brightest and best from across the world, while being robust against attempted abuse. The new system will give employers and educational institutions a stronger role in the managed migration system, and will introduce a more transparent and objective method of points-based structured decision making, which will significantly improve the quality of decision making and reduce the opportunities for abuse.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's best wishes, and I congratulate him on abandoning "Fantasy Island" policies, including withdrawal from the United Nations refugee convention and the absolute ceiling on numbers, both of which were authored by his right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. As for the points made by the hon. Gentleman, the cost will be subject to a tendering process, which is exactly the right way for any Government to proceed. As for whether the measure will increase or reduce the number of people, it is important to acknowledge—I think that the hon. Gentleman does so in his article in The Observer—that migration to work and migration to study are important to our economy and society, so we should welcome and encourage them. Illegal migration, however, is not acceptable, which is why the system is in place.
	On the proposal that employers should be required to recruit from the domestic work force first, our straightforward position is that we encourage people to work, both from this country and from the European Union. If people come from outside that area to work they should do so on the basis of this country's national priorities. It is therefore right to set skills as the top issue. It is because skills are absent in this country that we need to say that we should draw in people with the skills to fill the gaps. That is why the skills advisory board plays an important role. It does not decide what happens in tiers 2 and 3 but, none the less, it is an important advisory board.

Nicholas Clegg: I, too, on behalf of Liberal Democrat colleagues give a cautious welcome to the announcement. Anything that takes the politics out of the immigration system and introduces a degree of objectivity to a system that has too long been plagued by subjectivity and arbitrary criteria is welcome. However, I have questions about two aspects. If I had been longer in my present position, I would probably have a longer list of question, but as I have not been, my questions are blissfully short. [hon. members: "Oh."] I thought that might elicit a positive response in all parts of the House.
	First, the credibility of the system will necessarily hinge on the operation of the skills advisory board. Could the Home Secretary provide more detail on the composition of the board? An assumption has been made in the past that employers' organisations, trade unions, the public sector and the private sector would all be represented. The composition of the board is essential to ensure the right balance in an assessment of skills. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's expectation that the skills advisory board would try to pin down quotas—a specific quantification—for the skills in each sector? If so, that would have a great effect on the operation of the new system.
	The second aspect on which I seek clarification is the effect that the system will have on the immigration of unskilled labour. If the purpose is to make the immigration of skilled labour more organised, we hope that that will not have an unduly restrictive and punitive effect on sectors that still need unskilled labour. In certain parts of the country fruit pickers are short of unskilled labour, and as we saw in Morecambe Bay last year, excessive amounts of unskilled labour going under the radar screen would lead to exploitative behaviour by employers.

Charles Clarke: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role. The longer he is in the role, the shorter his questions will be, in contrast to the way some parties operate. I look forward to working with him.
	On politics and subjectivity, we will never remove politics from this area of national life, but I agree that objectivity and transparency in the system are exceptionally important. The system is intended to raise the quality of decisions. I hope that we can work together to ensure that the national debate on these matters is conducted in constructive and positive terms, rather than in the terms in which it has sometimes been conducted in the past.
	On the hon. Gentleman's particular questions, the skills advisory board will be directly related to the sector skills councils and therefore the Sector Skills Development Agency, which organises and develops those councils. It will also directly involve trade unions and business in a wide variety of sectors that will report directly to the board. I think that many hon. Members are still not fully aware of the developing role of the sector skills councils and the way in which they are drawing in employers, vocational trainers and employees in each area. As they develop their work, they will be able to give very detailed assessments of the skills shortages in their sectors. That is unlikely to lead to quotas in the sense of specific numbers, but it is likely to lead to information that will help the system to decide how many points should be allocated to people with particular skills in certain areas.
	That, too, will be the principle on the unskilled labour side, which will particularly inform tier 3 of our five-tier system. It will address the lack of skills in those sectors just as in all the others. As a former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, I would say that the right response to unskilled labour is to develop the quality of our skills training across the whole range.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, take a hard look at employment agencies that are recruiting and importing large numbers of workers from eastern European states, exploiting them by charging them for every conceivable service, leaving them with very little of their own money, and suggesting that there is an enormous pool of unskilled jobs still unable to be filled in the United Kingdom? That is not in anyone's interests and does this country's reputation enormous harm.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is notable for her reticence, so I am sure that we can be confident that nobody will discover this unaccustomed level of agreement.
	It has been a scandal in many parts of our national life that people have been able to work illegally in a system where people are drawn in from across the world to work in the most appalling and exploitative circumstances. My hon. Friend is right to say that that needs to be addressed. It was a central theme of the five-year strategy on this that we published last year. The gangmaster legislation has also been important in this regard, and we have published proposals jointly with the Department of Trade and Industry, the TUC and the CBI. The system is working better now, and we have had a significant number of arrests and convictions in precisely the areas that my hon. Friend describes. However, she is entitled to press still harder to ensure that we enforce the existing law in the most rigorous way. As she suggests, there is still a long way to go.

Diane Abbott: The whole House welcomes the Government's efforts to improve the system and to bear down on abuse. However, I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). The south Asian restaurant sector, which is only tiny, has the particular problem that even top-quality chefs on the sub-continent are unlikely to have paper qualifications the like of which this scheme turns on. Equally, they are less likely to be in large sector-based organisations to make their case. All that we asking is that the Government pay particular attention to that sector so that our Indian, Thai and Chinese restaurateurs may be assured that the Government understand the significance of their sector and the contribution that they make to the quality of life in our big cities.

Charles Clarke: I can give two assurances. First, the Government understand the importance of the sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) gave some important figures about the economic contribution of its members to the economy. It is fair to say that that contribution is not only to our economy, but to the breadth of our society and culture. I therefore give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks and stress that we will continue to monitor the position closely. The real answer is investment in people in this country to develop their skills. The Government are committed to making that happen.

Charles Clarke: The House will be shocked to hear that I agree that the activities of gangmasters and snakeheads are antisocial and should be driven out. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we will go through this whole approach policing rigorously the system to deal with organised crime. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), people trafficking is a central priority in the system, and we shall carry that proposal through.

Charles Clarke: There are two things to say about this. The first is that one of the effects of the scheme will be that it will be much easier to make applications internationally, so that many people seeking to enter the country who might previously have arrived at Dover will not need to go anywhere near it, because they will already know where they stand, the decision having been properly made in the country from which they come. The second, more substantive answer to my hon. Friend's question is that our e-borders proposals, which we have already published, and the development of biometric documentation will enable us to address these questions at ports such as Dover much more effectively.

Phyllis Starkey: I share many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), among others, about the effect of the scheme on south Asian restaurants. The Home Secretary seems to be suggesting that the problem will be solved by the provision of more training, but Milton Keynes has a dynamic local economy in which plenty of other jobs are available, providing much more attractive hours and conditions than those in the catering trade. I fear that if the supply of labour from the sub-continent is not allowed to continue, many restaurants in my city will close, to the detriment of those in my constituency, including me, who enjoy them as part of a range of restaurants there. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will keep the matter under review and will be able to act quickly if the fears raised by my hon. Friend and others prove to be justified?

Nick Herbert: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt small and medium-sized enterprises from regulation; and for connected purposes.
	Small business makes an immense contribution to the economy. Small enterprises—those with fewer than 50 employees—make up over 99 per cent. of all businesses and half all employment. As the economy moves toward higher, value-added activity, the share of it taken by small firms will only grow, so the weight of regulation now pressing on small businesses and hindering their wealth creation is an issue for us all. The Better Regulation Commission has estimated that the total cost of regulation facing the economy is now some £150 billion. The Hampton review found that national regulators alone send out 2.6 million forms a year.
	Inevitably, this burden falls disproportionately on small businesses. Large companies are able to employ people to deal with regulation; small businesses simply do not have that option. Academics from the London School of Economics have found that regulatory costs per employee are five times higher for small firms than for larger ones, that small employers spend five times as many hours per employee dealing with regulation, and that they spend almost 5 per cent. of their annual turnover on compliance. Equally, the Federation of Small Businesses has shown that the administration of pay-as-you-earn costs a business with fewer than five employees £288 per employee per year, yet for a firm with 5,000 employees, the cost is just £5 per employee. The Government's Carter review concluded that
	"there is no doubt that the weight of payroll obligations falls disproportionately on small businesses".
	Other regulations of particular concern to small businesses include the quarterly VAT return, the very frequent inquiry forms from Government Departments and the Office for National Statistics, and the new employment regulations, of which there have been 17 since 1997. The growing weight of regulation strongly suggests that the deregulation efforts of successive Governments have not been sufficient. Over the last two decades, the Enterprise and Deregulation Unit has been replaced by the Better Regulation Task Force, which, in turn, has been replaced by the Better Regulation Commission; but still the red tape has grown. The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 has had less than half the predicted impact; the total cost of regulation has increased by 50 per cent. in less than nine years. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill now before the House does not actually refer to deregulation. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) tabled an amendment to it proposing
	"specific provision to reduce the regulatory impact on small businesses where appropriate".
	I regret that his amendment did not pass, which helped to persuade me that an entirely new approach is needed.
	My Bill would confront the problem of regulation in three ways. First, it would give Ministers a duty to consider alternatives to, and exemptions from, existing regulations affecting small and medium-sized firms, and a power to create those exemptions. Secondly, because the impact of regulation on microbusinesses—those with nine employees or fewer and an average annual turnover of just £130,000—is particularly disproportionate, the Bill would create a presumption that microbusinesses are exempted from any future regulation. That would protect over 4 million businesses from future regulation. Thirdly, in respect of all future regulations the Bill would impose a statutory requirement to carry out a regulatory impact assessment—surprisingly, that is not a current requirement—and to consider alternatives to regulation in doing so.
	Many precedents already exist in terms of exempting small businesses from legislation. There are small business exemptions of one kind or another relating to tax and VAT returns, statutory audit requirements, trade union and employee representation, stakeholder pensions and Sunday opening hours. Other developed countries have also adopted the practice of exempting small businesses from regulation. Last year, France deregulated firms with fewer than 20 employees in order to encourage higher youth employment. In Italy and Germany, there are small business exemptions relating to statutory audit requirements, and trade union and employee representation. There are also numerous examples of small business exemptions in many states of the United States of America.
	This idea would be popular with businesses themselves. Last year, a Federation of Small Businesses survey found that 80 per cent. of small businesses support regulatory exemptions for the sector. The federation is in favour of the principle of exempting small businesses from regulation wherever possible, and it is particularly supportive of the idea of placing a duty on Ministers to consider alternatives to regulation. However, it is not just commercial enterprises that would benefit. Small charities, which often rely on voluntary help, find coping with regulation particularly difficult. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has proposed social enterprise zones with lower regulation, in order to assist in the development of the voluntary bodies that can play such an important part in delivering support to our most deprived communities.
	The Bill is a balanced measure that would not automatically abolish existing regulations for small and medium-sized businesses such as those affecting the rights of disabled people in the workplace, or, indeed, other employment rights. It would simply give Ministers a duty to consider alternatives to regulation, and suitable exemptions. They would then have a power to create such exemptions, subject to proper parliamentary approval. Similarly, in relation to microbusinesses, Ministers and Parliament would still be able to override the presumption of exemption from regulation if they so wished.
	The idea of exploring alternatives to regulation is simply to ask whether its benign objectives could be achieved by other means. For example, we should be anxious to maintain strong standards of health and safety, but we should be ready to examine whether they could be achieved through insurance mechanisms for the smallest firms, where the risk to employees is low.
	It might be argued that the Bill would create a disincentive for businesses to expand. The Better Regulation Commission considered that question and concluded that there was little evidence to support it. I believe that we should be looking to reduce the regulatory burden on all businesses, but the disproportionate impact on small businesses justifies special measures to help them.
	The Prime Minister has argued that
	"excessive regulation . . . impairs wealth creation as well as corroding welfare."
	The Chancellor has said that much current regulation is "ridiculous", but words are not enough. As CBI deputy director general John Cridland says in a letter to The Times today,
	"What business asks is that we begin delivering on deregulatory promises from all parties."
	If we are going to be serious about lifting the regulatory burden, a new settlement is needed, creating a presumption of deregulation for the smallest businesses, placing the burden of proof on the regulator, while maintaining proper parliamentary scrutiny of the process. That is the purpose of this Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Nick Herbert, Mr. Richard Benyon, James Brokenshire, Greg Clark, Mr. David Gauke, Mr. Greg Hands, Mr. Adam Holloway, Mr. Nick Hurd, and Mr. Shailesh Vara.

'The Secretary of State shall publish and lay before Parliament annually a report listing breaches of Annex VI of the MARPOL Convention that have taken place in United Kingdom waters and the action that was taken in respect of those breaches.'.—[Paul Rowen.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Rowen: Annex VI of the MARPOL convention extends pollution control of shipping to include air pollution for the first time. Although it is admitted that pollution from ships is small compared to other sources—with 4 per cent. of sulphur dioxide emissions and 7 per cent. of nitrogen oxide emissions—it nevertheless has a significant effect on our environment.
	Aside from the Malacca straits, the waters around the UK are the busiest in the world. It is predicted that by 2020, the size of the merchant fleet will have doubled and the size of ships is steadily increasing. It is also estimated that the provisions contained in the annex will save £3 million a year in damage to buildings and structures from SO 2 emissions, and the reduction in ozone emissions will result in 20 fewer deaths and savings of £26 million a year.
	I am pleased, therefore, to see in the draft copies of the secondary legislation that have been placed in the Library the adoption of the North sea as an SO 2 emission control area. That will involve more stringent controls on sulphur emissions, with a reduction to 1.5 per cent., compared to 4.5 per cent. in other areas. Those controls were discussed and agreed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee at its 53rd session in July 2005. Given past concerns on pollution in the North sea, and the fact that air pollution knows no boundaries, I am pleased to see those limits adopted.
	Some 23 states have already adopted the annex and I hope that more will do so. All UK ships have to have an international air pollution prevention certificate and other ships in UK waters that have adopted the annex must also have one. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is an annual reporting mechanism for breaches of the convention and action is taken. I know that concerns have been expressed in previous debates about flagships that have not adopted the annex, and while I appreciate that we cannot control those breaches, we need to ensure that appropriate action is taken against all ships that have signed up to the agreement but do not meet its controls. The new clause seeks to introduce a regular reporting mechanism so that Members can see what progress is being made in what is a first for shipping—the introduction of controls on air pollution.

Ivan Lewis: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a direct answer, but I can attempt to find that information for him. At this stage, I am not in a position to give him a definitive answer, but I am grateful for his expression of sympathy for my responsibility in this debate. I assure him that there was not a queue of Ministers wishing to lead on these matters.
	There have been relative improvements in the 2004 audit, but two thirds of the EU budget does not meet acceptable standards. The sum involved is about €68 billion, or £46 billion, but honesty and transparency are required, as the true extent of the problem must be defined. Fraud has taken place—I shall comment on that—but there are also errors or irregularities. If the ECA's audit leads it to believe that amounts calculated by member states differ in value by more than 2 per cent. from what it assesses to be the correct figure, it cannot give a positive assurance on that part of the budget. That does not mean that the whole budget sector is subject to error—it is still only a relatively small part. We must be careful, too, to distinguish between irregularities, where payments have been made in contravention of the rules, or where it was not possible to show that the correct procedures have been followed, and fraud, where money has clearly been stolen or used for entirely inappropriate purposes.
	Those issues are examined in detail in the "Fight against Fraud" report that was published by the Commission and which incorporates data from the European anti-fraud office—OLAF—to which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred. For the first time, in the 2004 report, OLAF has succeeded in identifying the amount of suspected fraud reported in agriculture and the structural funds. The relevant figures were 13 per cent. of the total agriculture irregularities and 17 per cent. of the irregularities in the structural funds.

Ivan Lewis: We are trying to achieve co-operation and consensus on this matter. Of course, at some stage in the process the concept of using a stick might well come into play. If it were absolutely clear that certain "rogue" states were unwilling to be held to account for their use of these resources, sanctions would of course be an option that ought to be considered. However, at the moment, that is not part of our strategy for reaching a point at which the accounts do not have the qualification attached by 2009. That might be part of the solution in future, but I hope that it will not be necessary. Sanctions are not part of the plan, but they might become part of the solution.

Ivan Lewis: That may be so, but I think it unfair to suggest that there is no desire or attempt, as part of the future management of finances, to examine the whole question of value for money, best value and waste. If my hon. Friend had said that the commitment was not as great as he would like it to be, perhaps we could agree—but to suggest that there is no desire to tackle the issue of waste in the European Union seriously is slightly unfair.
	The second issue that I want to discuss is what is being done to improve financial management. The issues in the reports are all too familiar to Members, but, as I have said throughout, that does not mean that nothing has been done to address the problems. In recent years the United Kingdom has championed a number of measures that have demonstrably improved the quality of financial management by the Commission, and that of the information that we receive. Many of them were introduced under the direction of Lord Kinnock—I am sure that that will prompt applause from Opposition Members—when he was vice-president of the European Commission. For example, the revised financial regulation clearly defined the roles of those accountable for the budget, introduced an independent internal audit facility, required all directors general to sign an annual declaration of assurance on the budget, and ensured that all expenditure was subject to the setting of objectives and the evaluation of their achievement.
	A little earlier, the UK was instrumental in shaping the structure and remit of the anti-fraud office, OLAF. The Chancellor called for a strong independent anti-fraud office, which would have the power of immediate and unannounced access to all European institutions.
	Anti-fraud measures have been adopted. The Commission's report for 2004 summarises achievements such as the conclusion of an agreement with the cigarette company Philip Morris International, which will establish an effective system to combat cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting in the future. The Commission also considers the issue of co-operation with member states, particularly on the effectiveness of the mutual assistance provisions for the exchange of information concerning irregularities detected, and the methods and practices used in suspected fraud cases.
	As for the quality of financial management information, Members will know that the Commission introduced a modern accounting system ahead of most member states, on time and within budget, on 1 January 2005. It will provide full accruals accounting, and should sort out the qualifications raised by the European Court of Auditors. The proof of the pudding will be in the ECA's report on the 2005 budget, which we expect to receive in November this year.
	On the institutional side, there has been considerable debate about how to optimise effectiveness and efficiency. I shall say something shortly about the Commission's "Roadmap to an Integrated Internal Control Framework", but let me first consider OLAF's work in response to the points that have been made. How good a job does it do? Is it effective in the fight against fraud? Does it have the right management and organisation to make a difference?
	That latter question was considered by the ECA in its special report on OLAF. Its main conclusion, with which we agree, is that it is not appropriate to change the status of OLAF, which currently operates as a service within the Commission. It has a hybrid structure and its director has operational independence so far as investigations are concerned, but it supports the Commission in other duties such as policy development.
	From time to time there have been calls for OLAF to become totally independent of the Commission, but the ECA believes that OLAF's hybrid structure has not adversely affected the independence of its investigative function, and indeed brings with it some advantages. For example, it shares the Commission's power to carry out on-the-spot checks in member states under existing sectoral legislation. The ECA considers that OLAF's resources are sufficient and that it has made considerable improvements in its procedures, but of course it is only fair to say—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West will be interested to hear this—that the report was not without its criticisms. The ECA criticised OLAF's relations with its supervisory committee and its performance in respect of human rights. OLAF acknowledges that its relationship with the committee could be better, and I hope that it will take the opportunity to review that and to make a new start with the new committee that has recently been appointed. OLAF has already addressed the human rights issue through its proposed amendments to its governing regulation.
	Last year we considered the complementary evaluation report, which showed that OLAF had handled a total of 1,688 cases up to 30 June 2004, in addition to inheriting 1,408 cases from its predecessor, UCLAF. Since 1999, OLAF has reduced the average duration of an investigation from 29 months to 22 months, and the total financial impact of cases closed by OLAF was around €4 billion. The supplementary activity report—produced to cover the six months from July to December 2004, because OLAF intends in future to report on a calendar year basis—updates and expands those performance figures. OLAF has handled a further 720 cases, and the total financial impact of cases that it has closed now stands at €5.8 billion. A total of €198 million was recovered from 2002 to 2004. So the figures are improving, and show that the fight against fraud is beginning to succeed.
	What will happen next with OLAF? We expect a revised proposal to amend its governing regulation later this year, and we will ensure that that takes account of the ECA's findings. I hope that OLAF will continue to analyse the true extent of fraud, for only when we have a reliable understanding of frequency of occurrence and identification of high-risk areas can we target effective preventive action.
	That brings me to the third area that I wanted to cover: the key next steps. The action plan has been established by the Commission and was agreed by Ministers in ECOFIN on 8 November last year; it covers the steps to be taken by the Commission, member states and the ECA. It bears repeating that the management of agriculture spending and structural funds is shared between the member states and the Commission. Those headings account for about 80 per cent. of the total EU budget, which is one reason why the ECA has frequently highlighted problems in its past reports. As we have discussed today, member states have vastly differing systems and organisations for managing these funds, and the Commission is often unable to obtain the degree of assurance that it seeks in order to satisfy the ECA.
	In response to calls from the European Council and the European Parliament to take action following the ECA report of 2003, the Commission issued a "Roadmap to an Integrated Internal Control Framework"—a snappy title if ever there was one—in June last year. That road map provided a real opportunity to deliver results—to deliver more concrete trust and visible belief in EU financial management and control systems. During its presidency, the UK was very willing to play an active role in taking that forward. The road map was proposed by the ECA itself and in its view, the answer to the problems that it uncovers every year is a system with a number of characteristics. Controls should be applied to a common standard in an open and transparent way, so that the results can be relied on by all parts of the system.

Ivan Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). We have led the argument for reform in all sorts of EU policy areas, including the Lisbon agenda covering productivity, competitiveness, our response to the challenges of globalisation and the EU's relationship with the US. We have been a constructive player at the heart of the EU, and we have begun to move the EU in the direction that we think that it should take to meet the challenges that we all face at the beginning of the 21st century. Other matters on which the UK has taken a lead include international security and terrorism. The UK is seen as a credible player that wants to make Europe work, and not as a nation that constantly wants to debate whether we should be in Europe at all. Our approach has gained us significantly more influence and a greater capacity to achieve change than was the case before 1997, when Britain had no credibility in the EU.
	I shall move on, as I do not want to provoke any more interventions. The other criterion laid down for the road map was that the basis of the internal control system should be a chain of control procedures, with each level having specific defined objectives that take into account the work of others. The ECA also believed that the cost of these controls should be in proportion to the overall benefits that they bring.
	In the road map, the Commission undertook to make a gap assessment, based on comparing its current control systems with the system proposed by the ECA, but it also proposed a way of gaining the assurance from member states that they currently lack. Building on the ECA's integrated internal control framework, the Commission suggested that each member state should produce an annual declaration of assurance in respect of its systems for managing Community funds and how they had performed—in much the same way that Government Departments in this country produce an annual statement on internal control, signed by the relevant accounting officer. The European Parliament wanted those member state declarations to be signed by the Finance Ministers, in order to demonstrate accountability and responsibility.
	Although I have no difficulty with demonstrating accountability and responsibility, there are legal and organisational problems with the European Parliament's idea. Moreover, the ECA did not say that national declarations were the answer. Without such an indication from the Court, there was little or no chance that member states would be persuaded.
	However, what was important was our joint ability to reach a practical and unanimous consensus. For the UK presidency, it was vital that the road map should provide an acceptable path for all member states, in the full spirit of co-operative action. ECOFIN on 8 November agreed conclusions that committed both the Commission and member states to take action to improve financial management and the level of assurance that we can give the ECA on the management of the Community budget.
	Those actions included an assessment by the Commission of the present controls at sector and regional level, and the value of existing statements and declarations. That will force improvement and allow a realistic evaluation of how the information currently provided can be made more effective and useful. They also included an examination and report by the ECA on how the integrated internal control framework would affect its audit approach, taking account of current international auditing standards. That will help to drive further the changes that the Court has already introduced into its methodology. It will also bring it closer into line with the methods used by the United Kingdom's National Audit Offices, similar bodies in other member stated and the private sector. Another action will be a professional assessment of the level of risks that can be tolerated for different kinds of transactions. At present the ECA applies a blanket 2 per cent. materiality rate for all policy areas, without taking account of complexities. The Commission intends to launch an inter-institutional process this month.
	With those conclusions, the Council has taken action to help to address the criticisms of EU financial management made by the Court of Auditors. Under the UK Presidency, we have tackled this issue for the first time at Council level, and have agreed actions that will commit member states and the Commission to co-operate in playing an effective role in the shared management of the Community budget. The Commission has now produced its action plan to implement the ECOFIN conclusions, and we intend to monitor progress closely.
	The Commission has made it a strategic objective to strive for a positive DAS by 2009, but that will not be achieved without the co-operation of member states. The Government will play an active role in strengthening that co-operation.
	I am well aware that the European Scrutiny Committee is somewhat sceptical of what it considers to be the Government's optimism with regard to the potential for improvement in financial management and control of the EU budget. I am also aware that people feel that they have been being told that improvements are on the way for a long time. What has changed is that we now have a transparent process and action plan that will lead to the tangible changes, supported by evidence, that those of us who continue to believe in the European Union want to see.
	This issue is at the heart of the credibility and integrity of the European Union. It is about the relationship between the EU and the taxpayers of Europe. I believe that the UK has played an honourable part in recent times, especially during our presidency, in saying that the issue is exceptionally important. The Commission now has a very different culture and I am optimistic that the 2009 objective can be achieved. However, it will not be achieved if we look to the Commission alone to solve all the problems, because it will also require each member state to take full responsibility for improving their own systems in relation to the expenditure.
	This process has been an interesting exercise in comparing the respective positions of the parties on the European Union. This is an important issue, and it is good that for the first time in several years we are having this debate on the Floor of the House.

Mark Francois: As usual, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Part of the situation that we are in now follows on from the fact that an entire Commission resigned on the issue of fraud some seven years ago, and the House, the British people and others across the EU were assured that such issues would be tackled head on as a result of that failure. We are now seven years on from then, and the Economic Secretary now attempts to argue that, at last, such things are being taken seriously and that the problems will be laid to rest in about three years. I want to test some of the arguments that the Economic Secretary has put to the House this evening and press him specifically on some of the details of the road map and how it is supposed to work in principle and how it is likely to work in practice.
	The road map is now used by the Government, the Council and the Commission as their answer to the challenge of how the problem will be dealt with. It is designed to facilitate the European Court of Auditors being able to sign off the accounts satisfactorily in the not-too-distant future, and I shall come to the timing shortly. In our debate Upstairs on 1 November, the Economic Secretary laid out the concept of the road map, which was initiated by the European Council and then taken up by the Commission as a result. He explained that the Government has sought to press that initiative as part of their presidency of the EU in the second half of last year. I want to press him tonight on how he sees that operating in detail and on what the European Scrutiny Committee in its 15th report of the 2005–06 Session—at page 12 of our bundle tonight—described as his
	"rather upbeat assessment of the situation."
	Let us get on to the detail. Will the Economic Secretary give us further information on the timings by which he envisages the process working? Given the history of all this, it seems clear that the problem will hardly be put right overnight. Can he provide some realistic idea of the year in which he expects the objective to be ultimately achieved and the accounts satisfactorily signed off, given that the EU firmly committed itself seven years ago to eradicating the problem? The Minister mentioned 2009, but will he be clear on whether the Government's stated position is that the accounts should be 100 per cent. signed off in 2009, or do they hope that the percentage signed off will be higher, if not necessarily 100 per cent.? Getting to 100 per cent. only three years from now seems ambitious, so will he be crystal clear about whether he expects to achieve 100 per cent. DAS by 2009?

Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should tell us what will happen if, whatever the target is, it is not met? We have had protestations of good intentions from the European Commission for a long time about the accounts, but nothing has happened and nothing has been done. Does he also agree that it is absolutely essential that the Minister tells us what will happen if the 2009 date is not met? May I also suggest that the Minister sticks with his adage, "Do less, better"? That way, if the target was not met by 2009, the budget would be cut, and that would concentrate minds.

Ivan Lewis: How does the hon. Gentleman know? He hasn't seen the reply.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has made a helpful intervention. In the previous debate on this subject it was suggested that we might produce sugar as a biofuel, which would be a much more environmentally friendly form of fuel production than producing alcohol for fuel. That is one possibility. Whatever the arrangements, we could choose nationally how we subsidised our agriculture. I am sure that we could do that while taking account of all the needs of the rural population, including farmers, as appropriate. I am sure that we would do a much better job of it than the CAP and the EU. Indeed, every country would do better.
	We should have a proper and thorough study of the precise fiscal distributional effects of abolishing CAP. What would happen to France? I have made a rough calculation that shows that abolition would not make that much difference. There might be a small cost equivalent to 1 per cent. of GDP if France were to subsidise its farmers directly rather than through the CAP. Indeed, the CAP is so inefficient and so corrupt that France might do a better job of it directly rather than through the CAP. Getting rid of the CAP would solve many of the problems.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend speaks with a great expertise on agricultural matters, and I am pleased to receive his assistance. We should consider rural policies in terms of agricultural subsidies. Perhaps we should regenerate some of our livestock farming, which is so healthy for the countryside, and also good for wildlife and for the environment. That could be done if we had a national agricultural policy rather than having a system that is based on the CAP and the EU.
	So often, those who take a critical view of these matters are said to be anti-European. I feel that I am strongly pro-European in the best sense. I was born in Europe, I speak a European language, I love European culture and I love European people. I happen not to believe that the construct that is called the European Union is a good idea as it stands. I believe that it should be substantially reformed. It is the EU construct that is wrong, not Europe. Europe is a wonderful place.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree about the commons fisheries policy. The European Union would be much more attractive to existing members, as well as to potential new members, if it worked better and was seen to be more just, fair and effective. I can think of a number of ways in which it should be reformed. However, I wish to stick to the topic of the budget and how the money is spent.
	The other matter about which I am concerned, as is the Department for International Development, is the aid budget. That budget is spent ineffectively, is subject to some corruption and it goes to the wrong places. It has been heavily criticised by DFID Ministers, both privately and publicly. I have suggested two possibilities for that budget. The first is that it should be repatriated and member states should be required to contribute a proportion of their GDP to aid. Perhaps the proportion might be higher for the richest nations. There should be a formulaic approach to aid so that we make sure we pay enough, but it should be distributed through national Governments or national Governments in collaboration.
	The second suggestion involves DFID, because it is recognised as doing a good job with aid and as not being corrupt. I have not supported some of its policies regarding privatisation, but it is highly regarded. I have the greatest regard for our present Secretary of State for International Development, whom I have heard speak on many occasions, who does an extremely good job. If the aid budget for the European Union were handed over to Britain to manage on a franchise basis, I am sure that we would do a much better job than the European Union and that the aid would go to the right places. Some of the problems with that budget relate to the fact that national interests dictate that some aid goes to slightly richer countries around the rim of the Mediterranean rather than to sub-Saharan Africa where the need is greatest. We have to repatriate the aid budget or introduce fundamental reforms, perhaps even hand it over to DFID to manage. With our present Secretary of State, we would do a good job.
	Other aspects of the European Union budget will cause problems. It irritates me when I walk through my town centre and see a large notice, with a big, blue flag with yellow stars on it, saying that the town is to be modernised with money from the European Union. We are massive net contributors to that budget. It is our money, not the European Union's money, that is paying for the modernisation, but the EU gives the impression that it is a benign Father Christmas delivering money to Britain, when actually we are Father Christmas giving money to the European Union. I am not suggesting that we should not give fairly to the budget. Indeed, I have suggested on many occasions that if we had a budget in which contributions and receipts were exactly proportional to living standards in member states, so that richest give most and the poorest receive most, that could be seen to be fair. One could just look at a sliding scale and see a graph of how it worked. Everybody would say that that system was fine and they would sign up to it. But the current budget does not work like that; the CAP distorts it and makes it look unfair.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was about to say that national Governments should distribute funding according to their needs; they should make the judgment about which of their regions needs money. Indeed, the Chancellor has suggested that as and when our regional fund benefits disappear, as poorer member states join, extra funds will be substituted by the Treasury, which is right. However, we in the House are the best judges of which regions need more or less money. We should make those decisions and the situation is the same for other countries. Distribution should be proportionate to relative GDP per head in member states and they should make their own decisions.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about regionalisation. I am seriously concerned that building up the regions is an attempt to play down the Governments of member nation states. I cannot accept that. Member state Governments are the political entities in which the majority of people believe. I do not suggest that nation states should be nationalistic, but national Governments should have the final responsibility for the welfare of their citizens. The central Governments of member states should have that democratic role, which should not be undermined by the EU building up the regions and playing down member state Governments. That would be a great mistake.
	We have an ongoing problem with the European Union. We are tinkering at the edges of the corruption and incompetence with which the budget is managed, and fundamental change will be necessary if we are to overcome the problems. We have to deal with the fundamental problem that people and institutions in the member states—farmers and so on—are spending other people's money and that that is somehow all right. It has even been suggested that the glue holding the EU together is the fact that money is sloshing about and everybody gets a bit of the action. That is not the way to approach democratic politics. We should know what we are spending our money on and vote to spend it as appropriate, collectively in democratic member states and, where necessary, at minimal level, through the EU.
	As the Government have said many times, the EU should be an association of independent, democratic member states working together for their mutual benefit, where appropriate. It should not be the beginnings of a European state, which many of us would reject.

Susan Kramer: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate. I did not for a moment believe that merchant shipping would not take up the full time allocated—it was unexpectedly treated with brevity.
	I shall set out our position and suggest some directions that we should like reform to take. Whether the issue is fraud, error or irregularity, Liberal Democrats take it extremely seriously. It is completely unacceptable that for the 11th successive year the ECA cannot sign off the EU's accounts with a positive statement of assurance.
	I am conscious, however, that we need to be careful about throwing stones—as other Members have remarked. As the House knows, the EU presents its accounts for audit in a global fashion, whereas in the UK we present them Department by Department. As others have pointed out, the National Audit Office has qualified the accounts of the Department for Work and Pensions on more than one occasion, so if there was a global set of UK accounts, they would all be qualified. The uncertainty and mistrust that flow from unsatisfactory sets of accounts undermine the whole purpose and image of the EU, so we want to tackle the problem as aggressively as possible.
	May I propose three ways in which we could tackle the issue? First, as the House is well aware, 80 per cent. of the EU budget or approximately €65 billion is spent by the nation states. Policy is set at EU level, but the responsibility for spending and payment, primarily of the common agricultural policy subsidies and the structural funds, is delegated to national level. The European Parliament, in its discharge report on the last annual budget, called for national Finance Ministers to sign off a national statement of assurance for each member country, with the goal of making sure that each member state takes full and proper responsibility for spending and payments inside its national boundaries. Ministers rejected that at the last European Council—they are not anxious to be accountable to the European Parliament. At a minimum, however, a key national body, whether the NAO in this country or an equivalent body in other countries, ought to take on that responsibility, as we need a detailed audit trail from the bottom to the top. It could be constructed as a pyramid, with each audit built on a sound audit at the level below. We could then begin to force each nation to face up to its responsibilities as a member of the EU.
	Once national statements are made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) suggested, we can begin to consider the issue of penalties. It is not acceptable for people to recognise that information is not properly controlled or monitored year after year and that there is a potential for error or fraud but to fail to take reasonable action. The total elimination of payments may not be required but a penalty could be imposed. As the EU grows and more countries join as a result of accession, there is a danger that those countries will not put in place the proper auditing structures, controls and monitoring. By starting on the wrong foot, we will compound the problem and the issue will escape us in its complexity.
	Secondly, the Commission's internal system of controls are a concern. We cannot place the whole problem on the shoulders of the nation states. It is unacceptable that parliamentary recommendations have not been followed, as they require key members of the Commission to sign off essential reports such as the annual activity reports and declarations on which the synthesis report is based. Whether it is a director general, the secretary general or the internal auditor who is accountable, there must be a structure so that the Commission takes internal responsibility far more aggressively and positively for the accounts that it presents.
	Thirdly, we have often talked about tolerance of the risk of error. The NAO has a tolerance rate of about 1 per cent., as it accepts that there is a point at which chasing error is far more costly than the error itself. There is therefore an acceptable benchmark, but as discussions proceed in the EU it is critical that the error tolerance rate should be very low. It could be 1 per cent., as it is in the NAO. We must treat the EU as a sophisticated, developed organisation and, if we are to have confidence in it, we should not apply the standards that we would attach to overseas aid to developing countries.
	Finally, when the EU talks to the developing world and tells the United Nations that it must be careful about the way in which it offers aid to new and emerging economies it should make certain that it is purer than Caesar's wife. We take a proactive stand over and over again, telling developing countries that they must clean up their auditing act, but for us to do so from a position where we can be criticised strikes me as unacceptable.
	I speak as a pro-European. There is nothing less acceptable to a pro-European than to sit by and look at an unreformed EU that permits a relatively low standard of auditing to continue year after year. For the credibility of the European Union, which I consider to be an important part of our future, we must pursue the kind of reforms suggested in the road map, and we probably have to go beyond that.

Ian Davidson: I begin by paying tribute to the Minister's generosity in giving way so often during his opening remarks. It is worth my saying openly that we all welcome the opportunity that that provided to have a dialogue with him, and that many of his colleagues would do well to take lessons from him in that regard. He spoke for some time, and I must say in all honesty that he was not always wrong. I strongly agree with a number of points that he made, particularly his call for the European Union to do less and to do it better.
	I want to return to a point that I made during an intervention about the road map. We have been promised for some time that the EU will behave better at some future point, but it never actually happens. We are now being promised that by the end of 2009—the end of the Barroso Commission—such problems will be resolved, but it is not clear what will happen if they are not. I am not aware of what the British Government believe should happen in those circumstances. I very much suspect that whoever the next Commissioner is—be it Peter Mandelson or someone else—we will simply carry on, saying, "We will try to resolve the situation by the end of this presidency." My worry is that this is a process without end, and it is for exactly that reason—because we see so little progress—that so few Members bother to attend these debates.
	What tangible gains were made during the British presidency in terms of introducing a greater degree of financial probity? What did Britain achieve in that area that we can look back on with pride, saying, "That resolved some issues and resulted in a considerable improvement"? I am not aware of the British presidency's having resulted in many real achievements, although I entirely accept that the Government's heart was in the right place and that they made the right noises, said the right things and tried to move in the right direction. However, the achievements that they have to show for it are somewhat limited. It would also be helpful if the Minister were to clarify the steps being taken in conjunction with Austria and Finland to ensure that any minor gains achieved are being carried forward, so that demonstrable progress can be made.
	The Public Accounts Committee regularly produces reports on EU financial management. One significant element of the most recent report was the attempt to simplify the rules governing the EU and all its operations. The complexity of the present regulations exacerbates the problems encountered in their operation. It has increased administrative difficulties and the opportunities for fraud, and it is not entirely clear that Britain has achieved as much in that regard as it might have wanted.
	The Minister did not mention the question of the culture within which the EU operates, which I see as one of the main problems that we face. Britain is not perfect in that regard, but at least our attitude to waste, fraud, corruption and mismanagement is different. For instance, the National Audit Office and the PAC supervise the accounts, and we also pursue value-for-money studies and try to root out mis-spending or wasteful spending.
	However, that approach is not replicated in the rest of the EU, and in an intervention on the Minister I asked about the fact that the European Court of Auditors did not produce value-for-money studies. It is notable that all the emphasis in the EU is on making sure that the money is not being stolen, rather than on making sure that it is being spent effectively.
	I hope that the Government are willing to pursue such matters more vigorously in future. The "do less better" approach is the one that we should adopt, but it is hard to believe that the Court of Auditors is doing so sufficiently vigorously. For example, on page 234 of the papers issued to hon. Members for this debate it is stated that the Court of Auditors budget remained at €84 million in 2003–04. It seemed to me that there was an opportunity in that period to "spend to save"—that is, to spend additional money in the Court of Auditors to make sure that money was spent more effectively elsewhere. In contrast, in the same period the budget for the European Parliament rose by 18 per cent., from €986 million to €1,166.
	How can we take seriously the suggestion that the European Parliament is determined to curb wasteful expenditure when its own spending has risen by 18 per cent., and when MEPs maintain the farce of commuting every month between Strasbourg and Brussels? How can the British public believe that the EU is seriously interested in safeguarding taxpayer's money, when no one in this country supports such wastefulness—apart from the Liberal Democrats, of course. [Interruption.] I note that that remark has been met with universal acclamation, and no denial even from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), the only Liberal present.
	Will we be given an opportunity to vote against this motion? It states only that the House "takes note" of these documents, but it seems a terrible waste of time to do the same thing year after year. It would be worth while for some hon. Members to vote against the motion, just to demonstrate that we are unhappy with the process. Presumably, the time will come when Parliament has an opportunity to vote against the EU budget and its extravagances, although I see that that possibility is well along the way to being rejected by the European Parliament. It has been reported that members of the Budgets Committee unanimously adopted a draft resolution yesterday that
	"formally terminates the current Inter-Institutional Agreement, allowing Parliament to keep more advantageous Treaty provisions as the sole basis"
	if talks on the next financial perspective fail.
	After agreement has been reached between national Governments, the European Parliament has decided that the amount of money being spent is insufficient. Again, the only support for that in this country will come from the Liberal Democrats. We will have to proceed with a budget that already contains substantial amounts of pork, overspending and waste, and the European Parliament and the Liberal Democrats want to spend even more. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us when we will have the opportunity to vote against that?

Ivan Lewis: No, I will not.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Government's opinion on when the accounts will be 100 per cent. cleared. It is the Commission's stated objective that the qualified assessment will be removed by 2009. We think that it is good that the Barroso Commission has set itself that target and we welcome that, but we cannot be sure that all the necessary measures will be in place to achieve it. There is still a lot of work to be done before we can be sure that it will be achieved.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for an update on the progress of accruals accounting. I have become an expert on accruals accounting in recent times and there is good news. The Commission successfully met the deadline to implement the new system in January 2005. The transition to the new system was successful and there is an ongoing process to develop that system. The European Court of Auditors queried whether the production of the 2005 opening balance would be ready in time. The Commission assures us that it is on track.
	The hon. Gentleman asked also what would happen to the debt-for-GDP ratio if off-balance-sheet figures are taken into account. I think that he was expecting me to write back on the matter. I apologise for the letter not having arrived. The Office for National Statistics classified public debt based on agreed national accounting rules, SA95. It is nonsensical to add contingent liabilities to GDP calculations as they do not apply to other member states. There is no figure with which the UK could make a comparison, nor is there any implication in relation to stability and growth. The issue is not relevant.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the abatement concession was included in figures for the United Kingdom's contributions that were published in the pre-Budget report and whether it would be included in the figures for the Budget. As far as we are concerned, the PBR was in line with the code for fiscal stability, which as always contained cautious assumptions, a point which I made to the hon. Gentleman at the time. From memory, the negotiations at that time were ongoing. Therefore, any assumption would be an assumption. We were cautious. The figures will be updated now in the usual way at the time of the Budget.
	The hon. Gentleman asked also for some examples of how the road map objectives would be achieved. The major actions that will improve assurance are improving internal controls in the Commission and in member states to the standards that are proposed by the European Court of Auditors, promoting further simplification of complex legislation—the ECA says that this will lead to improvements—reaching a political agreement with the European Parliament on the level of risk that is tolerable, and introducing greater involvement of national audit offices. As many Members have suggested, our NAO is very willing to help in that regard.
	I have tried to address all the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke for the 11th successive year on these issues. He made an informed and intelligent contribution, but I cannot say that I agreed with everything that he said. That may come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members. However, my hon. Friend tried to make a constructive contribution.
	I hope that the career of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) will not suffer as a result of her enthusiastic support for the recent unsuccessful leadership bid of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). The hon. Lady asked about some important points, including the Commission having an appropriate system of accountability. The directors-general of the Commission already sign declarations of assurance. From now on the Commission's chief accountant will sign off the accounts. That is a further strengthening.
	The hon. Lady asked also about the National Audit Office and what the United Kingdom might do. We were the first member state to provide a response to the annual report of the NAO. That is a process and obligation that is now in the EU's financial regulation. We have already cleared the way to support the idea of management level declarations. We were fully prepared to support this at Council. We are certainly interested in making better use of the NAO to audit our management of EU funds.
	We did not make the level of progress that we would have liked on that because many member states did not feel able to support that approach. That is because they have highly federal or regional structures. The UK has a pretty impressive record in recent times in trying to drive the agenda forward during our presidency and also in making contributions in Council whenever possible.
	The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was thoughtful and constructive. He is frank about his scepticism. Most of the time it is a balanced scepticism. I think that he conceded that there has been some progress in recent times although he feels that there has been nowhere near enough progress. That is a reasonable point to make.

Ivan Lewis: When I realised that one of my responsibilities during the past few months was linked to the EU budget for 2006 and the question of audit, I made it clear that we would be proactive in regarding this issue as a priority during our presidency, which we tried to make it. Commissioner Kallas felt that the UK presidency was crucial in making the road map proposal work. Beyond the UK presidency, we now have to take a lead role in maintaining the pressure in these issues if we are not to come back here year and after year and hear the same old story. I will give my hon. Friend a commitment that, in my role, I will continue to take this issue seriously. I know that the Chancellor, in his contribution in ECOFIN meetings, as he always has been in this country, is constantly concerned about making sure that financial probity is central.
	I come to the contribution by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor). He always makes well-informed, measured, sensible contributions on this and many other issues. I am sorry to damage his career even more than it has been damaged in recent years by the honourable positions that he has taken on these issues. They have been honourable because anybody in the Conservative party who has taken a balanced view on Europe has seen his career suffer as a consequence of those judgments. All too often, it has been easy to pander to a gallery—the Eurosceptic gallery—and give a false, out-of-context impression of the European Union. The hon. Gentleman has always resisted doing that in the same way as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has, which is one of the reasons why he never became Leader of the Conservative party and why it chose such excellent leaders during the past few years as alternatives.
	As for the Mars and Venus analogy, I shall leave it to Members to decide who is in which category. Perhaps they can discuss that later. I assure the hon. Member for Esher and Walton that the Government will continue to exert pressure on these issues, because anybody who believes in the vision and concept of the European Union knows that it is essential that we make progress on this in terms of the credibility and integrity of the EU and the relationship it has with its taxpayers. If we do not make progress on this, it will be a stick for sceptics to beat the European Union with year after year. They will deliberately present this out of context.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), who was very well informed on these issues, said that I had spoken at length and was not "all wrong". I am not sure whether that will do me much good, but I regard it as a major compliment from my hon. Friend. I have already explained what I believe the achievements of our presidency were on these issues. I do not think the road map would have been taken forward if we had not prioritised it in our presidency. However, it is the beginning of a process; the delivery of it will make all the difference. My hon. Friend also expressed concern about the culture of the European Union. We have to find it encouraging that there are signs within the new Commission of a different culture that takes these issues seriously and understands the great challenges that lie ahead, whether they are globalisation or the gap that has grown in recent times in the relationship between the European Union and the citizens of Europe. I believe that there is some encouragement in the attitude of the new Commission in understanding that there has to be cultural change.
	My hon. Friend also asked when the UK Parliament will have an opportunity to vote "against the EU budget". I shall turn that into "on the UK budget", which is a more objective view. In accordance with our procedures, a European Community finance Bill will be an opportunity to vote on these issues.
	The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made a contribution that reinforced his prejudices. He has always been honest about these issues. He wants the United Kingdom to adopt a form of associated status in the European Union. Long may he continue to speak loudly and clearly on these issues at every opportunity, and long may he be an example of how any appearance that the Conservative party is moving to the centre of politics, whether in this country or internationally, is mere pretence. They are as right-wing and ideological as ever—the hon. Member for Stone is proudly nodding his head—which I am sure will become clear in the months and years ahead.
	The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) talked of the importance of exposing fraud while not targeting whistleblowers who give information. As I said, I cannot comment on individual cases or circumstances, which would be entirely inappropriate, but the first thing that anyone in an organisation should do is to report any suggestion of fraud or maladministration to management. If they do not take the information seriously or try to cover it up, there is legitimacy in the person feeling obliged to make it public knowledge, in many cases. Whistleblowers have played an honourable role in bringing to the public's attention all sorts of maladministration and fraud.
	The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) intervened to ask me why farmers had not been paid any money recently, but did not tell me that he was a farmer. My response might have been very different had I known that self-interest was to the fore.
	The debate has been useful. It has shed light on issues that we do not often discuss in Parliament. The matter is at the heart of the relationship between the European Union—
	It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [6 March].
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. OJ C 301, the European Court of Auditors 2004 Annual Report; No. 11216/05, European Court of Auditors Special Report No. 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office; No. 11452/05 and Addenda 1 and 2, Protection of the financial interests of the Communities: fight against fraud, Commission's annual report 2004; No. 12493/05 and Addendum 1, Commission Report: follow-up to 2003 Discharge Decisions–Council recommendations; No. 12494/05 and Addendum 1, Commission Report: follow-up to 2003 Discharge Decisions–European Parliament Resolutions; No. 12712/05, Commission Staff Working Document: follow-up to the 2003 European Court of Auditors Annual Report; and No. 13532/05, Member States' replies to the Court of Auditors 2003 Annual Report; and supports the Government's promotion of measures to improve the level of assurance given on the Community budget.

Helen Jones: Last autumn, I visited a group in my constituency called WASPS. It was one of the most enlightening and humbling visits I have ever made. WASPS stands for the Warrington Asperger's syndrome parents support group and when I listened to what those parents told me I was sometimes close to tears. I hasten to add that that was not because they were moaning about their lot, or complaining about the hand that life had dealt them; they were simply telling me about the day to day realities of living with a child with Asperger's syndrome and about their struggle to access even the most basic services.
	Those parents cope every day with things that would bring most of us to our knees. They deal with stresses and strains that those of us fortunate enough to have healthy children who do not have major problems can hardly imagine, yet in my area they receive little support. I think that is because much of what they do is hidden, and helping them and their children does not seem high on anyone's list of priorities. I hope that this debate will at least help to give the problem higher priority.
	Asperger's syndrome is a complex condition and I admit that since last autumn I have been on a steep learning curve. It has many traits in common with autism, including difficulties in communicating and in dealing with social relationships and sometimes a lack of imagination, although Asperger's syndrome children often do not experience the same difficulties in communication as many children suffering from autism—for example, they may speak fluently although they can often sound stilted or formal. Nor do children with Asperger's syndrome necessarily have the learning difficulties experienced by children with autism; in fact, they are often of average or even above-average intelligence. One of the ladies in the group told me that her son had recently gone to university. There is vast potential in such children, which can be brought out if they have the right support, especially at an early age.
	Unfortunately, however, because Asperger's syndrome covers a wide spectrum and the disability may not be as obvious as autism, it is often a long time before the condition is recognised and diagnosed. I am told that parents often feel a sense of relief when they finally receive a diagnosis, because at least they know what the problem is. Unfortunately, however, they have to do a great deal to learn to cope with their child's complex needs and access services, often with very little support. I was astonished to find, for instance, that in my constituency parents are often given a diagnosis, then simply told to go away and read a book or join a support group. They are not told which services could help them or how they could obtain them. That is appalling, especially as those families are under a great deal of strain.
	My local group carried out a survey of its members, and it found that 73 per cent. of parents had suffered depression since the birth of their child. More than 90 per cent. thought that they needed counselling or psychological support at some stage, but very few of them received it. Only 50 per cent. obtained any support at all, often in the form of an one-off intervention or for a very short time. The survey revealed that 65 per cent. of parents suffer regular sleep deprivation. We know what we are like after missing a night's sleep, so we can only imagine what it is like to endure that week after week. That, however, is the reality for many of those parents. A total of 85 per cent. thought that their career choice or their ability to work had been restricted because of their child's needs.
	There is a strain on relationships, and siblings in the family can be affected. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) takes a great interest in these matters, and I am sure that she would find the comments of parents in that group as distressing as I do. One mother, for instance, said:
	"My daughter has started to copy behavioural tantrums and arguing because that is what she sees."
	That mother has not been offered any counselling. Another mother talked about the relationship between her son and her other children:
	"They are upset by what he does, he hits them quite badly at time; their behaviour is a lot worse when he is being difficult."
	There is very little help available for those families but, in my experience, they are exactly the sort of people whom the Government say they want to support. We say that we want to support hard-working families, and I can think of few families who work as hard or who are as deserving of support. We would not dream of telling someone with a physical problem to go away and read a book or join a support group. We would not leave them in that position, and it is not acceptable for those children either. That is not what the Government intended when they drew up "Every Child Matters" and the national service framework for children. In those initiatives we talked about integrated children's services and clear care pathways for children, but they do not exist for those children in my constituency. Their parents have lobbied patiently and with commendable courtesy to try to improve things.

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend is right. It is sad that good practice is not spread as widely as it should be. Before Christmas, I held a meeting with parents' representatives and representatives of the primary care trust and of the local council to discuss the problems. It emerged from that meeting that educational practice is different in different schools. It is often a question of training, yet the local authority representative pointed out that while she could offer training courses, it was for head teachers to decide whether their special educational needs co-ordinators should attend them.
	In its current inquiry into specials needs, the Select Committee has found that a great deal more training is required, both in initial teacher training and in continuous professional development. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take that message back to the Department for Education and Skills.
	Although some parents were full of praise for the help that they had received from their child's school, others had had to struggle to get every bit of support that was given. Again, that raises questions not only about the monstrous waste of potential that is occurring, but about the implementation of Government policy on the ground. When we dealt with admissions in the report, I remember the Select Committee stating that fairness in public policy ought to be not a matter of luck, but a matter of course. The same applies to special needs.
	Parents also highlighted the problems they have in accessing the health service. I know that the Government have done a great deal to try and improve services for children suffering from autistic spectrum disorders, but what they wish to achieve is not always carried out in practice. Even when parents in my constituency can get assessments for their children, they often have to wait up to 12 months for some intervention, such as speech and language therapy or occupational therapy. It is even more difficult for them to access the child and adolescent mental health services. In my area those are provided by the Five Boroughs Partnership NHS Trust, but the PCT is commissioning only the tier 3 services, partly for historical reasons, at 25 per cent. of what is recommended in the national service framework. That means that CAMHS tend to intervene only when a child reaches crisis point—for example, when the child is self-harming. If we had earlier intervention and proper care pathways, it is my firm belief that not as many children would reach that crisis, and the strain on families would be much reduced.
	What the parents are seeking, and I agree with them, is to ensure that when a child is diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, they are allocated a key worker or a lead nurse who can help the family access the services that they need, whether in health or in education. We should ensure as well that when that diagnosis takes place, there is a proper assessment of the child's needs and what therapies they will require. Each child is different and requires different interventions. That may be speech and language therapy or occupational therapy. They may need some input from CAMHS, not because the child is suffering a mental illness, but because they need cognitive behavioural therapy, for example, or some other psychological support.
	That support needs to be sustained over time. Short-term interventions are often of very little help to children with Asperger's syndrome. They need sustained intervention, yet not only can people in my area find it difficult to access the higher level of services, but it is difficult for them to get even tier 2 services. The primary care trust tells me that there is a multi-agency group looking at services for children with personal, emotional and behavioural problems. We have a lot of groups looking into things, but what we do not have is a service. Part of the reason is that the PCT does not treat the matter seriously enough.
	I referred earlier to the meeting that I held. At that time the chief executive of the PCT was unable to attend because she was ill, but getting somebody else there was like drawing teeth. Although I wrote to the PCT following that meeting and it told me what it is doing with tier 2 services, nearly three months later the PCT still has not answered my question about key workers. It still has not answered the question about linking up our education and health services more closely. If we could get such services in place, we would make it much easier for children to achieve, we would reduce the stress on their family and siblings, and in the end we might even save money. We could do it in education as well.
	Why is it often the case that when a child is given a diagnosis their parents still have to go through the whole statementing process to get them the support that they need in school? They do not want to do that. They have had a diagnosis, and that should trigger the educational interventions automatically. We are wasting money on the vast bureaucracy of statementing that should be spent on assisting these children.

Caroline Flint: There has long been a problem for children with special needs, in relation to their transition from children's services to adult services and the adult world. We are attempting to improve that position, certainly in mental health services, and considerable work has also been done in social services. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that more needs to be done. Young people with degrees will be valuable members of whichever work force they enter, and it is important to ensure that people, whatever their disabilities, can have a crack at having as independent and fulfilling a life as possible. I shall pass on the point that my hon. Friend has raised about the transition from childhood to adulthood. We identified earlier the support that we wanted to give to children and young people. We do not want to see all that investment lost if, in adulthood, they are unable to use that support to good effect as they grow older.
	I am aware that Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority has proposed the retention of a single PCT for Warrington. I am advised by the SHA that the PCT has well-established joint working with Warrington council through the health and well-being partnership. I understand that Warrington council sees provision for children with ASD, including those with Asperger's syndrome, as an area of development. It recognises that this is an area that has more potential in regard to delivery.
	I know that the local authority is also exploring developing its specialist provision in its schools for those with ASD. The development of a range of educational provision for children with ASD is encouraged by the ASD good practice guidance. However, the PCT recognises the need to work more closely with Warrington council, and it intends to strengthen joint commissioning for mental health, learning disabilities, children, older people and child and adolescent mental health services, with a view to improving them.
	I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North has been raising concerns locally about the provision of services to children with Asperger's syndrome, and that she has met representatives of the Warrington Asperger support group, and of Warrington PCT. I understand that, following that meeting, the PCT wrote to her about the development of a new tier 2 service, which will provide a service for children and young people whose symptoms and/or behaviours are indicative of an emotional or behavioural problem. That would include children with Asperger's syndrome. The service will be delivered in line with standard 7 of the children's national service framework and "Every Child Matters" by a multidisciplinary team. I am further advised that Warrington PCT has prepared a local delivery plan bid for a key worker role to support young people with a suspected diagnosis of autism, including Asperger's syndrome.